I don't really have any comment on the punishment section of your post, that is indeed a diffrent perspective you can look from when looking at the subject.
but I do disagree with your statement that the bible clearly states that god wants people to love him because they want to, not because need to. The bible clearly mentions things like hell and such, I think many people, "Love" god and follow christian rules because of the promises of hell if you don't. The reason I believe this, is because that is also the reason I considered christianity. the one reason was fear. I actually did try to convince myself to believe what the bible said was true.
Of course Ronny said you are dead. Christians believe you are dead until you find Christ. You are blind and deaf because you choose not to try to see or listen to what he says. You are looking for the smallest errors and are not paying attention to the Message.
You guys look for he smallest "errors" in evolution and the age of the world. Of course any errors you guy bring up are just misconceptions.
Why won't he respond to any of this? Because fighting won't bring you to God! He is not the one contradicting himself, I am by arguing. If it is about bringing you to God, then how will arguing help? A Christian that does nothing be fight is probably pushing more people away. That is probably why Enigma and Ronny left.
As my pastor once said:
Athiests have to have a lot of faith to be sure there is nothing after this, and for their sake I hope they are right.
I suppose that applies to Buddists too...
Although i'm not an atheist, it would take an atheist more faith to not believe in evolution.
Just as any evidence to the contrary of the beliefs of an evolutionist or an old earth believer is either shoved under the table,
I don't think they are shoved under the table. If you just google evolution and creationsim you will find a TON of discussion about it from evolutionists.
or new processes are invented in order to explain it...dark matter comes to mind.
If by "invent" you mean:
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
I don't really have any comment on the punishment section of your post, that is indeed a diffrent perspective you can look from when looking at the subject.
but I do disagree with your statement that the bible clearly states that god wants people to love him because they want to, not because need to. The bible clearly mentions things like hell and such, I think many people, "Love" god and follow christian rules because of the promises of hell if you don't. The reason I believe this, is because that is also the reason I considered christianity. the one reason was fear. I actually did try convincing myself to believe what the bible said was true.
If God didn't want us to have a choice, why would we have a choice in the matter? Obviously we do, because we have free will.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Of course Ronny said you are dead. Christians believe you are dead until you find Christ. You are blind and deaf because you choose not to try to see or listen to what he says. You are looking for the smallest errors and are not paying attention to the Message.
You guys look for he smallest "errors" in evolution and the age of the world. Of course any errors you guy bring up are just misconceptions.
Why won't he respond to any of this? Because fighting won't bring you to God! He is not the one contradicting himself, I am by arguing. If it is about bringing you to God, then how will arguing help? A Christian that does nothing be fight is probably pushing more people away. That is probably why Enigma and Ronny left.
As my pastor once said:
Athiests have to have a lot of faith to be sure there is nothing after this, and for their sake I hope they are right.
I suppose that applies to Buddists too...
Although i'm not an atheist, it would take an atheist more faith to not believe in evolution.
Just as any evidence to the contrary of the beliefs of an evolutionist or an old earth believer is either shoved under the table,
I don't think they are shoved under the table. If you just google evolution and creationsim you will find a TON of discussion about it from evolutionists.
or new processes are invented in order to explain it...dark matter comes to mind.
If by "invent" you mean:
Would you prefer it if I said postulate with no other evidence other than that for preconcieved notions to be true, a postulation has to be true?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I think it's the creationists that postulate. Evolution has tons of evidence.
Even a 9 year old should understand this: Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What you don't realize is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Can there be still a god or divine creator and evolution with our lives being linear with a beginning and an ending? Just because there might be a creator does that mean we are more important than grass, dogs and bacteria? I sincerely doubt the bible is anything more then a control tool just like the Quaran and other religious texts that preach to the masses.
For me to act like I know what its all about would make me look like a fool but its just seems very illogical for us as humans to be more important than bacteria because some divine ruler gave us sentience. What was I before I was born then? I also feel its very illogical to assume what I do in a human life span can affect my eternal soul? That seems a bit harsh especially since I am just a mere mortal human who does things to survive and procreate. I also want to know why bible thumpers who say the bible is the true teaching of god can't explain the passages where it advocates stuff like rape, murder, slavery and other things that are considered criminal in modern society? If some words in the bible can be false teachings then what else in there is truth?
Could some one give specific examples of "passages where it advocates stuff like rape, murder, slavery and other things that are considered criminal in modern society"? I have seen multiple mentions of these passages in this thread, but haven't quite found them (mainly the ones about raping being good?).
Could some one give specific examples of "passages where it advocates stuff like rape, murder, slavery and other things that are considered criminal in modern society"? I have seen multiple mentions of these passages in this thread, but haven't quite found them (mainly the ones about raping being good?).
As soon as I get an hour or so to sit down and find them all I will and they are from the old testement mostly as well which tells you the mentality of people back then. Same with the Quaran as well as it advocates alot of brutality and inhumanity as well but let me get back later with exact quotations.
I think it's the creationists that postulate. Evolution has tons of evidence.
Even a 9 year old should understand this: Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What you don't realize is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
Please learn the difference between micro evolution (adaptation and speciation) and macro evolution, if you are going to debate me about it.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Chirstians have the exact same paradox...... they just have to deal with it twice. ie Where did god come from ? How is that a paradox? That's the whole point of the word "Eternal" and if god created the world, what did he use to create it ? Again how is that a paradox? If we believe that God is all powerful, why would he need something to create something else? He's God, he's not tied to your rules of physical reality. Much more simple to deal with a nearly unsolvable paradox once (Quantum Mechanics does show that the universe can create "nothing" by creating two particles of equal and oposite charge) As for creating processes, thats what science is all about, science is all about PREDICTABILITY, nothing more, ots not about being correct, its about being predictable, that whole concept breaks down when you try to make creationism a science, why ? because God created everything, and there is no predictability about that at all. It is stagnent. Why would god create a world where things just work ? Why woulkd he create one where things didnt work. Why woud a perfect being create an imperfect world ? What things in nature don't work when they go untampered with? If humans didn't intervene, animals would exist in perfect harmony and their way of life would always be preserved...This world is only as imperfect as humans make it with their sin. But above all, if God exists outside of the Universe, where did he pull the 10^100 particles from ? (I THINK that was the last estimate) You already asked that question with your second question, and it's hardly perplexing when you understand the concept of our God.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Chirstians have the exact same paradox...... they just have to deal with it twice. ie Where did god come from ? How is that a paradox? That's the whole point of the word "Eternal" I find it hard to understand how a being that exists outside of time can be eternal at all, if he exists outside of time, how can you apply anything to do with time to Him ? What process made God exist, there had to be one, otherwise i could say the exact same thing about the universe...... "Its eternal" You are overcomplicating it...we use time to describe how we percieve events passing us by, since it's all the same to God, no beginning or end, time is somewhat of a misnomer with regard to him. And the problem with saying that the Universe is eternal is that the Universe IS bound to physical laws of nature, whereas God is not...therefore the Universe does need to be created through processes, God is, once again, outside of that restriction.
and if god created the world, what did he use to create it ? Again how is that a paradox? If we believe that God is all powerful, why would he need something to create something else? He's God, he's not tied to your rules of physical reality. But the particles in the world are part of my physical reality, where did he get them from ? Its a simple question, the exact same question that you asked of science, why do you hold science responsible to answer it, yet not hold creationism up to the same level of scrutiny ? This is a VERY unscientific thing to do, and the main reason why creationism is not, should not, will not, and cannot not be a science, EVER. Its hypocracy on a relgious scale. Once again, you are tying God to physical laws of reality...I think you know enough about what Christians believe to not do that. And you'll never hear me claiming that the belief in God is a science...what you WILL hear me do is apply science to beliefs that I hold...If I couldn't apply science to my beliefs, then I wouldn't believe them, I'm not some sheep that's going to believe something without rational reasons why. Creationism is not a science because science has decided that God is not scientific, pure and simple....it has nothing to do with irrationalities, if it did then the Big Bang would have been thrown out long ago.
Much more simple to deal with a nearly unsolvable paradox once (Quantum Mechanics does show that the universe can create "nothing" by creating two particles of equal and oposite charge) As for creating processes, thats what science is all about, science is all about PREDICTABILITY, nothing more, ots not about being correct, its about being predictable, that whole concept breaks down when you try to make creationism a science, why ? because God created everything, and there is no predictability about that at all. It is stagnent. Why would god create a world where things just work ? Why woulkd he create one where things didnt work. Why woud a perfect being create an imperfect world ? What things in nature don't work when they go untampered with? If humans didn't intervene, animals would exist in perfect harmony and their way of life would always be preserved...This world is only as imperfect as humans make it with their sin. The act of studying a system will always change it, how can you possible say if humans wernt around animals would exist in harmony, you have absolutly no evidence to suggest that at all, only conjecture. For all you know, the entire food chain could collapse and animals could have never of existed in the first place (atleast the animals we have now) if it wasnt for man. Sure we are detremental, but to focus purely on that and not even try to look at the otherside of the argument is zealocy. Then your assertion is also based on conjecture..you say that our world is imperfect..so prove it...you can't, because there are too many influences that aren't what would be called "natural" (man made global warming comes to mind) And anyway, you said yourself that we are detrimental, that kind of refutes your whole argument right there that we have no way of knowing how nature would respond to our absence...because obviously you think that humans are having a negative impact. But above all, if God exists outside of the Universe, where did he pull the 10^100 particles from ? (I THINK that was the last estimate) You already asked that question with your second question, and it's hardly perplexing when you understand the concept of our God. Nor is it perplexing to a scientist who has more than a basic understanding of the Quantum world. Its rather simple and elegant actually. Then why did you ask the question is it's not perplexing?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Chirstians have the exact same paradox...... they just have to deal with it twice. ie Where did god come from ? How is that a paradox? That's the whole point of the word "Eternal" I find it hard to understand how a being that exists outside of time can be eternal at all, if he exists outside of time, how can you apply anything to do with time to Him ? What process made God exist, there had to be one, otherwise i could say the exact same thing about the universe...... "Its eternal" and if god created the world, what did he use to create it ? Again how is that a paradox? If we believe that God is all powerful, why would he need something to create something else? He's God, he's not tied to your rules of physical reality. But the particles in the world are part of my physical reality, where did he get them from ? Its a simple question, the exact same question that you asked of science, why do you hold science responsible to answer it, yet not hold creationism up to the same level of scrutiny ? This is a VERY unscientific thing to do, and the main reason why creationism is not, should not, will not, and cannot not be a science, EVER. Its hypocracy on a relgious scale.
Much more simple to deal with a nearly unsolvable paradox once (Quantum Mechanics does show that the universe can create "nothing" by creating two particles of equal and oposite charge) As for creating processes, thats what science is all about, science is all about PREDICTABILITY, nothing more, ots not about being correct, its about being predictable, that whole concept breaks down when you try to make creationism a science, why ? because God created everything, and there is no predictability about that at all. It is stagnent. Why would god create a world where things just work ? Why woulkd he create one where things didnt work. Why woud a perfect being create an imperfect world ? What things in nature don't work when they go untampered with? If humans didn't intervene, animals would exist in perfect harmony and their way of life would always be preserved...This world is only as imperfect as humans make it with their sin. The act of studying a system will always change it, how can you possible say if humans wernt around animals would exist in harmony, you have absolutly no evidence to suggest that at all, only conjecture. For all you know, the entire food chain could collapse and animals could have never of existed in the first place (atleast the animals we have now) if it wasnt for man. Sure we are detremental, but to focus purely on that and not even try to look at the otherside of the argument is zealocy. But above all, if God exists outside of the Universe, where did he pull the 10^100 particles from ? (I THINK that was the last estimate) You already asked that question with your second question, and it's hardly perplexing when you understand the concept of our God. Nor is it perplexing to a scientist who has more than a basic understanding of the Quantum world. Its rather simple and elegant actually.
One word: Omnipotent.
Actually that's three words with the "dramatic intro..."
Now it's fifteen.
Well, the number of words is aside from the point.
The original post about the paradox-ness of something being created from nothing was pointed at athiests. It would be a paradox to them because athiests say there is no God or omnipotent being. Christians believe in an Omnipotent God. To us it isn't a paradox because we do believe there is a God outside of our reality, outside of our understanding. We believe that God is so complex and powerful that no one can even comprehend his power. So we have no paradox with God because he can basically just do whatever he wants, however impossible it may seem. On the other hand, athiests don't believe in any such being so every thing must have come from somewhere, but there is nowhere for it to come from..
Why am I even getting involved at this level? It's just a useless argument where neither side will be swayed. Oh well...
You mock us for forcing our views on others and yet you seem to think you need to force us not to be religious
Here’s a clue... you can't.
Religion and science are both belief systems
The farther back you pull the time frame the less sense they both make.
And don't give me any quantum mechanics bullshit. I've actually read lots of books and big bang stuff and they doesn't even come close to proving ether side. Both groups are acting on faith.
But religion caused thousands to die its bad shouldn’t it be abolished?
You are pretty naive if you think science hasn’t caused thousands of deaths as will.
Read Mein Kampf it’s pretty clear where Hitler got his ideas.
Religion may start some wars
But wars have gotten worse and worse in terms of human casualties because of science.
Maybe we should ban science so that weapons don’t get invented that can kill millions (opps to late for that one).
Please learn the difference between micro evolution (adaptation and speciation) and macro evolution, if you are going to debate me about it.
The two terms were coined by an evolutionary biologist who in the end conceded they were both the same. The only difference between them is a vowel.
______________________________ "When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!" -cheer leading, flag waving American
Please learn the difference between micro evolution (adaptation and speciation) and macro evolution, if you are going to debate me about it.
The two terms were coined by an evolutionary biologist who in the end conceded they were both the same. The only difference between them is a vowel.
The fact that you think that micro evolution and macro evolution are the same thing tells me that you need to go read a biology text book before you attempt to debate this with me.
I'll get it started for you: Micro evolution isn't evolution at all, it's adaptation and speciation. No new information needs to come into a set of DNA in order for micro evolution to occur, because the information is already there, sets of latent and sub latent DNA simply get switched around to the active portion of the DNA, causing the change.
Macro evolution refers to what most people think of as evolution. Supposedly micro evolution over millions of years causes macro evolution. The problem with this idea is that no matter how much micro evolution occurs, no new information will be put into an organisms DNA (information refers to sets of DNA that cause something like an animal growing scales or feathers) Because that simply does not occur in nature, it has never been known to occur, and actually, a substantial cash reward is offered to anyone who can observe it. Thus far nobody has done it. So the term micro evolution is really just a purposefull evolutionist misnomer in an attempt to equate adaptation with evolution, when really, the two are not the same thing at all, since there is no evidence that one leads to the other.
If you're thinking of bringing up Darwins finches or bacteria immunities...don't bother, neither of those things are examples of new information being added to DNA, and evolutionists know that, and it drives them nuts.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Comments
they believe that god dont exist...with no proves^^
but I do disagree with your statement that the bible clearly states that god wants people to love him because they want to, not because need to. The bible clearly mentions things like hell and such, I think many people, "Love" god and follow christian rules because of the promises of hell if you don't. The reason I believe this, is because that is also the reason I considered christianity. the one reason was fear. I actually did try to convince myself to believe what the bible said was true.
Just as any evidence to the contrary of the beliefs of an evolutionist or an old earth believer is either shoved under the table,
I don't think they are shoved under the table. If you just google evolution and creationsim you will find a TON of discussion about it from evolutionists.
or new processes are invented in order to explain it...dark matter comes to mind.
If by "invent" you mean:
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Just as any evidence to the contrary of the beliefs of an evolutionist or an old earth believer is either shoved under the table,
I don't think they are shoved under the table. If you just google evolution and creationsim you will find a TON of discussion about it from evolutionists.
or new processes are invented in order to explain it...dark matter comes to mind.
If by "invent" you mean:
Would you prefer it if I said postulate with no other evidence other than that for preconcieved notions to be true, a postulation has to be true?
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Even a 9 year old should understand this: Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What you don't realize is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
For me to act like I know what its all about would make me look like a fool but its just seems very illogical for us as humans to be more important than bacteria because some divine ruler gave us sentience. What was I before I was born then? I also feel its very illogical to assume what I do in a human life span can affect my eternal soul? That seems a bit harsh especially since I am just a mere mortal human who does things to survive and procreate. I also want to know why bible thumpers who say the bible is the true teaching of god can't explain the passages where it advocates stuff like rape, murder, slavery and other things that are considered criminal in modern society? If some words in the bible can be false teachings then what else in there is truth?
{(RIP)} SWG
{(RIP)} SWG
Please learn the difference between micro evolution (adaptation and speciation) and macro evolution, if you are going to debate me about it.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
One word: Omnipotent.
Actually that's three words with the "dramatic intro..."
Now it's fifteen.
Well, the number of words is aside from the point.
The original post about the paradox-ness of something being created from nothing was pointed at athiests. It would be a paradox to them because athiests say there is no God or omnipotent being. Christians believe in an Omnipotent God. To us it isn't a paradox because we do believe there is a God outside of our reality, outside of our understanding. We believe that God is so complex and powerful that no one can even comprehend his power. So we have no paradox with God because he can basically just do whatever he wants, however impossible it may seem. On the other hand, athiests don't believe in any such being so every thing must have come from somewhere, but there is nowhere for it to come from..
Why am I even getting involved at this level? It's just a useless argument where neither side will be swayed. Oh well...
Stupid Tread...
-for the overmind.
______________________________
"When Saddam flew that plane into those buildings, I knew it was time to kick some Iranian ass!"
-cheer leading, flag waving American
The fact that you think that micro evolution and macro evolution are the same thing tells me that you need to go read a biology text book before you attempt to debate this with me.
I'll get it started for you: Micro evolution isn't evolution at all, it's adaptation and speciation. No new information needs to come into a set of DNA in order for micro evolution to occur, because the information is already there, sets of latent and sub latent DNA simply get switched around to the active portion of the DNA, causing the change.
Macro evolution refers to what most people think of as evolution. Supposedly micro evolution over millions of years causes macro evolution. The problem with this idea is that no matter how much micro evolution occurs, no new information will be put into an organisms DNA (information refers to sets of DNA that cause something like an animal growing scales or feathers) Because that simply does not occur in nature, it has never been known to occur, and actually, a substantial cash reward is offered to anyone who can observe it. Thus far nobody has done it. So the term micro evolution is really just a purposefull evolutionist misnomer in an attempt to equate adaptation with evolution, when really, the two are not the same thing at all, since there is no evidence that one leads to the other.
If you're thinking of bringing up Darwins finches or bacteria immunities...don't bother, neither of those things are examples of new information being added to DNA, and evolutionists know that, and it drives them nuts.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.